Search

It remains uncertain if invasive coronary physiology beyond fractional flow reserve (FFR) can refine lesion selection for revascularization or provide additional prognostic value. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) equals the ratio of hyperemic to baseline flow velocity and has a wealth of invasive and noninvasive data supporting its validity. Because of fundamental physiologic relationships, binary classification of FFR and CFR disagrees in approximately 30%-40% of cases. Optimal management of these discordant cases requires further study. The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic value of combined FFR and CFR measurements to predict the 24-month rate of major adverse cardiac events. Secondary end points include repeatability of FFR and CFR, angina burden, and the percentage of successful FFR/CFR measurements which will not be excluded by the core laboratory. This prospective, nonblinded, nonrandomized, and multicenter study enrolled 455 subjects from 12 sites in Europe and Japan. Patients underwent physiologic lesion assessment using the 0.014" Philips Volcano ComboWire XT that provides simultaneous pressure and Doppler velocity sensors. Intermediate coronary lesions received only medical treatment unless both FFR (≤0.8) and CFR (<2.0) were below thresholds. The primary outcome is a 24-month composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. The DEFINE-FLOW study will determine the prognostic value of invasive CFR assessment when measured simultaneously with FFR, with a special emphasis on discordant classifications. Our hypothesis is that lesions with an intact CFR ≥ 2.0 but reduced FFR ≤ 0.8 will have a 2-year outcome with medical treatment similar to lesions with FFR > 0.80 and CFR ≥ 2.0. Enrollment has been completed, and final follow-up will occur in November 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It remains uncertain if invasive coronary physiology beyond fractional flow reserve (FFR) can refine lesion selection for revascularization or provide additional prognostic value. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) equals the ratio of hyperemic to baseline flow velocity and has a wealth of invasive and noninvasive data supporting its validity. Because of fundamental physiologic relationships, binary classification of FFR and CFR disagrees in approximately 30%-40% of cases. Optimal management of these discordant cases requires further study.Aim: The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic value of combined FFR and CFR measurements to predict the 24-month rate of major adverse cardiac events. Secondary end points include repeatability of FFR and CFR, angina burden, and the percentage of successful FFR/CFR measurements which will not be excluded by the core laboratory.Methods: This prospective, nonblinded, nonrandomized, and multicenter study enrolled 455 subjects from 12 sites in Europe and Japan. Patients underwent physiologic lesion assessment using the 0.014" Philips Volcano ComboWire XT that provides simultaneous pressure and Doppler velocity sensors. Intermediate coronary lesions received only medical treatment unless both FFR (≤0.8) and CFR (<2.0) were below thresholds. The primary outcome is a 24-month composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.Conclusion: The DEFINE-FLOW study will determine the prognostic value of invasive CFR assessment when measured simultaneously with FFR, with a special emphasis on discordant classifications. Our hypothesis is that lesions with an intact CFR ≥ 2.0 but reduced FFR ≤ 0.8 will have a 2-year outcome with medical treatment similar to lesions with FFR> 0.80 and CFR ≥ 2.0. Enrollment has been completed, and final follow-up will occur in November 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Aortic valve stenosis (AS) can cause angina despite unobstructed coronary arteries, which may be related to increased compression of the intramural microcirculation, especially at the subendocardium. We assessed coronary wave intensity and phasic flow velocity patterns to unravel changes in cardiac-coronary interaction because of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and Results--Intracoronary pressure and flow velocity were measured at rest and maximal hyperemia in undiseased vessels in 15 patients with AS before and after TAVI and in 12 control patients. Coronary flow reserve, systolic and diastolic velocity time integrals, and the energies of forward (aorta-originating) and backward (microcirculatory-originating) coronary waves were determined. Coronary flow reserve was 2.8±0.2 (mean±SEM) in control and 1.8±0.1 in AS (P<0.005) and was not restored by TAVI. Compared with control, the resting backward expansion wave was 45% higher in AS. The peak of the systolic forward compression wave was delayed in AS, consistent with a delayed peak aortic pressure, which was partially restored after TAVI. The energy of forward waves doubled after TAVI, whereas the backward expansion wave increased by >30%. The increase in forward compression wave with TAVI was related to an increase in systolic velocity time integral. AS or TAVI did not alter diastolic velocity time integral. Conclusions--Reduced coronary forward wave energy and systolic velocity time integral imply a compromised systolic flow velocity with AS that is restored after TAVI, suggesting an acute relief of excess compression in systole that likely benefits subendocardial perfusion. Vasodilation is observed to be a major determinant of backward waves. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR. Methods: We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg. Results: We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P <0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P <0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: −0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively. Conclusions: The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]